"Congress cannot by any definition (of income in this case) it may adopt, conclude the matter,
since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate,
and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully expressed."Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189

"The 16th Amendment does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune. It was intended only to remove all
occasions for any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary"Evans V. Gore, 253 U.S. 245

"In numerous cases where the IRS has sought enforcement of its summons pursuant to statute, courts have held that a taxpayer may
refuse
production of personal books and records by assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination."
Hill v. Philpott, 445 F2d 144, 146

"A personal right that is not transferable or assignable is also not taxable. Damages for alienation of affections, defamation of personal character do not constitute income"
United States v. Kaiser, 80 S.Ct. 1264

"Income means gains/profit from property severed from capitol, however invested or employed.
Income is not a wage or compensation fro any type of labor"
Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739

"Tax on income derived from property was the equivalent of a direct tax on the income-producing property itself
and must be apportioned in accordance with provisions of Article I of the Constitution"
Home Mutual Insurance Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 639 F2d 333

"Courts have no power to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect to their ideas of policy and fitness
or the desirability of symmetry in statutes."
Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 479 F2d 1143

"If the defendant had a subjective good faith belief, no matter ow unreasonable, that he was not required to file a tax return,
the government cannot establish that the defendant acted willfully"Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192

"(b) A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment
right and participation in an otherwise available public program. It is true that the Indiana law
does not compel a violation of conscience, but where the state conditions receipt of an
important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a
benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure
on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists.
While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless
substantial"Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana..., 450 U.S. 107

"The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any
governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310
U.S. 296, 303. Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant
belief, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367
U.S. 488; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups
because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities,
Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345
U.S. 67; nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of
particular religious views, Murdock v. Pennsylvania,
319
U.S. 105; Follett v. McCormick, 321
U.S. 573; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297
U.S. 233. On the other hand,
[374
U.S. 398, 403] the Court has rejected challenges under the Free
Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted
by religious beliefs or principles, for "even when the action is in accord
with one's religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions." Braunfeld v. Brown, 329
U.S. 14.Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398

"We conclude then that government regulation that indirectly and
incidentally calls for a choice
between securing a governmental benefit and adherence to religious beliefs
is wholly different from
governmental action or legislation that criminalizes religiously inspired
activity or inescapably compels
conduct that some find objectionable for religious reasons. Although the
denial of government
benefits over religious objection can raise serious Free Exercise problems,
these two very different
forms of government action are not governed by the same constitutional
standard. A governmental
burden on religious liberty is not insulated from review simply because
it is indirect, Thomas v.
Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-718 (1981) (citing
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, at 404);
[476 U.S. 693, 707] but the nature of the burden is relevant to
the standard the government must meet to justify the burden."Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693

"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language
that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar"United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95

"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction"
[New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)]

"There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
[U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222]

"the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed ... The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ..."
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 212, 221, 223]

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the
same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously".
[...Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example...]
Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]